Senior Bill of Rights "Dissent" Assignment
From The Progressive, yesterday. Comments welcome. Previous Beowulf Ex-cred still available.
Wal-Mart Turns in Student’s Anti-Bush Photo, Secret Service Investigates Him
Matthew RothschildOctober 4, 2005
Selina Jarvis is the chair of the social studies department at Currituck County High School in North Carolina, and she is not used to having the Secret Service question her or one of her students.
But that’s what happened on September 20.
Jarvis had assigned her senior civics and economics class “to take photographs to illustrate their rights in the Bill of Rights,” she says. One student “had taken a photo of George Bush out of a magazine and tacked the picture to a wall with a red thumb tack through his head. Then he made a thumb’s down sign with his own hand next to the President’s picture, and he had a photo taken of that, and he pasted it on a poster.”
According to Jarvis, the student, who remains anonymous, was just doing his assignment, illustrating the right to dissent.
continued. . .
posted by erdecker @ 1:50 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
This case is, of course, a violation of the I and IV amendments, but the government almost completely covers its steps with qualifiers in the wording of the constitution (note my own qualifier “almost”). First of all, the government, according to the 1st, “shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” In this case, the government is not passing a law and is only “abridging the freedom of speech” depending on what speech is defined as. The dictionary defines it as: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. A picture in that definition is not speech and therefore they are not cutting into the 1st amendment. The IV amendment states “the right of people to secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” Note the qualifier unreasonable, infinitely open ended. The IV does describe when Warrants should be issued but does not specifically say that they are required in “reasonable” causes. The requirement is an interpretation not a specific statement. I do not envy the Supreme Court that has to interpret the constitution because it can be swayed many directions.
Yeah what he said. Anyways, the funny thing about these types of criminal cases is that the government looks all evil and cruel, but if this kid was never investigated and he ended up hurting Bush-supporters or Bush himself, I know it's a big what if, but if he did the government would be blamed for not following up on the report filed by Wal-Mart and the local police dept. Look at 9/11 the government didn't follow up on some tips they had and people said they should have stopped the terrorists. Now the government takes some action and they look like the bad guys. The media should all be a part of http://www.radiobs.net/mediaslander/archives/2005/05/the_newspaper_g.php because so many report biased, or incorrect news.
i side with Eric on this one, i think Wal-Mart and the Police and FBI weren't trying to end the boy's basic freedoms but rather in the intrest on National and personal security do the right thing, whether or not some people want to believe it i think they had good intentions.
-Becky B
Post a Comment
<< Home